`
` Petitioner,
`
` vs.
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` INTEL CORPORATION,
` ) Case No.
` ) IPR2019-00047
` ) IPR2019-00048
` ) IPR2019-00049
` ) IPR2019-00128
` ) IPR2019-00129
` )
` ) U.S. Patent No.
` ) 9,154,356
`
` QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
` CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF PATRICK FAY, PH.D.
` South Bend, Indiana
` Friday, January 10, 2020
`
`Reported by:
`RACHEL F. GARD, CSR, RPR, CLR, CRR
`JOB NO. 173903
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 1
`
`
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`
`Page 96
`
` January 10, 2020
` 9:05 a.m.
`
` Deposition of PATRICK FAY, PH.D., at
`Morris Inn, 1399 North Notre Dame Avenue,
`South Bend, Indiana, pursuant to notice before
`Rachel F. Gard, Illinois Certified Shorthand
`Reporter, Registered Professional Reporter,
`Certified LiveNote Reporter, Certified Realtime
`Reporter, Indiana Notary Public.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2 3 4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 2
`
`
`
`Page 97
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
` WILMERHALE
` Attorneys for Petitioner
` 1225 17th Street
`
` Denver, Colorado 80202
`
` BY: BENJAMIN FERNANDEZ, ESQ.
`
` JONES DAY
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` 77 West Wacker Drive
` Chicago, Illinois 60601
`
` BY: THOMAS RITCHIE, ESQ.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 3
`
`
`
`Page 98
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
` I N D E X
`WITNESS PAGE
`PATRICK FAY, PH.D.
`Cross-examination by Mr. Ritchie 99
`
` E X H I B I T S
`INTEL EXHIBIT PAGE
` Exhibit 1039 Declaration in 100
` IPR2019-00047
`
` Exhibit 1139 Declaration in 104
` IPR2019-00048
` Exhibit 1239 Declaration in 106
` IPR2019-00049
`
` Exhibit 1339 Declaration in 109
` IPR2019-00128
` Exhibit 1439 Declaration in 110
` IPR2019-00129
`
` Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356 114
`
` Exhibit 1325 Kaukovouri reference 143
`
` Exhibit 1024 Hirose reference 158
`
` Exhibit 1004 3GPP TR 36.912 166
`
` Exhibit 1335 Lee reference 180
`
`QUALCOMM EXHIBIT
` Exhibit 2013 U.S. Patent 9,161,254 145
` Exhibit 2017 U.K. Patent Application 151
` GB 2472978
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`67
`
`8
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`25
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 4
`
`
`
`Page 99
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`
` (Witness sworn.)
`WHEREUPON:
` PATRICK FAY, PH.D.,
`called as a witness herein, having been first
`duly sworn, was examined and testified as
`follows:
` CROSS-EXAMINATION
`BY MR. RITCHIE:
` Q. Would you state and spell your name
`for the record, please.
` A. Yes. I am Patrick Fay. That's
`P A T R I C K. And my last name is Fay, F A Y.
` Q. And what's your current address,
`Dr. Fay?
` A. Yes. My address is 16045 Baywood
`Lane in Granger, Indiana.
` Q. And do you understand that you are
`testifying under oath today?
` A. Yes, I understand that.
` Q. Any reason that you cannot testify
`fully and truthfully today?
` A. No, there's no reason.
` Q. Please let me know if you don't
`understand a question that I ask and I'll try
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 5
`
`
`
`Page 100
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`to clarify it for you. If you answer, I'm
`going to assume you understand; is that fair?
` A. Yes, that's fair.
` Q. And if you need a break at any time,
`please let me know. We can take a break as
`long as there's no question pending at that
`time.
` Now, you understand this deposition
`pertains to your second set of declarations for
`U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356, correct?
` A. Yes, that's my understanding.
` MR. RITCHIE: And those matters for
` the record are: IPR2019-00047, -00048,
` -00049, -00128, and -00129.
` Q. Now, I may refer to the patent, the
`9,154,356 patent as the '356 patent. When I
`say '356 patent, will you understand that I'm
`referring to U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356?
` A. Yes, I'll understand that.
` (INTEL Exhibit Number 1039 for
` identification.)
` Q. All right. I'm handing you what's
`been marked as Exhibit INTEL 1039. Do you
`recognize Exhibit 1039 as a declaration you
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 6
`
`
`
`Page 101
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`submitted in IPR2019-00047?
` MR. FERNANDEZ: Counsel, for the
` record, my copy doesn't appear to have
` color.
` MR. RITCHIE: Okay. I think they're
` all black and white.
` A. Yeah, this does appear to be a
`black-and-white version of this declaration.
` Q. That's fair. Please let me know if
`that causes any problem, and we'll see if we
`can figure out a way to address that --
` A. Okay.
` Q. -- at some point during the
`deposition.
` Aside from being in black and white,
`it appears to be complete otherwise?
` A. It does appear to be complete, aside
`from the color-coding being absent.
` Q. And that's your signature on the
`last page next to the date December 23, 2019?
` A. Yes, that is my signature.
` Q. Are you aware of any mistakes or
`errors in the document?
` A. There's one -- not so much a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 7
`
`
`
`Page 102
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`mistake. There's a clarification I might like
`to make.
` Q. Sure.
` A. And that is on -- in Paragraph 4, I
`write that I have been informed that the '356
`patent has a priority date of August 21, 2012.
`In an earlier declaration, I had -- and, I
`think, in fact -- this is, in fact, the filing
`date for the '356 patent. In the earlier
`declaration, previous declaration, I had
`written it had an earliest priority date of --
`if you have my earlier declaration or the '356
`patent, I can refer to it, but ...
` Q. There are all five of your earlier
`declarations in that binder.
` A. Excellent.
` Q. Feel free to refresh your memory on
`them.
` A. Thank you.
` MR. RITCHIE: For the record, I
` handed the witness a binder that has a copy
` of each of his five earlier declarations
` that he's reviewing.
` A. Yes. Here we go. In footnote 1 of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 8
`
`
`
`Page 103
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`my original declaration for the 00047 IPR, on
`Page 10, I indicate May 25th, 2012, to be the
`earliest priority date for the '356 patent.
` Q. So to be clear, I understand, so in
`your second declaration, for example, in
`Exhibit 1039, Paragraph 4, you're clarifying
`that August 21, 2012, is the filing date of the
`'356 patent?
` A. And the earliest priority date.
` Q. Is May 25, 2012?
` A. Yes, that's correct.
` Q. And that's the date that you
`consider to be the date of the alleged
`invention that you are --
` A. The earliest priority date.
` MR. FERNANDEZ: Objection. Form.
` A. I consider -- I considered May 25th,
`2012, to be the earliest priority date for the
`'356 patent.
` Q. Very good. Thank you.
` Any other clarifications or mistakes
`in this document, in Exhibit 1039?
` A. If there are typos, I'm not aware of
`them.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 9
`
`
`
`Page 104
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
` Q. Did anyone assist you in your
`research, investigation, or testing in
`preparing INTEL 1039?
` A. I received clerical and support from
`Intel's counsel in preparing the document.
` Q. Did anyone assist you in formulating
`your opinions in this declaration?
` A. This declaration reflects my
`opinions of the patented matter.
` (INTEL Exhibit Number 1139 for
` identification.)
` Q. Handing you what's been marked as
`INTEL 1139. Do you recognize Exhibit INTEL
`1139 as a declaration you submitted in
`IPR2019-00048?
` A. Yes, I recognize this document
`that's a black-and-white copy of the
`declaration I prepared for the 00048 IPR.
` Q. And, again, if it becomes an issue
`that it's in black and white as opposed to
`color, please let me know and we'll see if we
`can figure out how to address that.
` Is this your signature on Page 37
`next to the date December 23, 2019?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 10
`
`
`
`Page 105
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
` A. Yes, that is my signature.
` Q. Are you aware of any mistakes in
`this document or clarifications that you'd like
`to make?
` A. Just as with the 00047, in
`Paragraph 4, I quoted the filing date of August
`21st, 2012, but for the purposes of my
`analysis, consistent with my previous
`declaration, I used an earliest priority date
`of May 25th, 2012.
` Q. March 25th?
` A. May.
` Q. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.
` A. Did I misspeak previously?
` Q. You may or may not have. I notice
`that both of those dates are in that footnote.
`There's a March date and a May date in that
`footnote. It's Page 10 of that declaration.
` A. Thank you. Ah, yes, the footnote in
`question reads: For purposes of this
`declaration, I consider May 25th, 2012, to be
`the earliest priority date of the '356 patent.
`I have been informed and understand that the
`patent owner has alleged a conception date of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 11
`
`
`
`Page 106
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`March 25th, 2012, in a related matter. The
`concepts I describe in this declaration were
`known before that date.
` Q. Thank you. Are you aware of any
`other mistakes or clarifications that you'd
`like to make in Exhibit INTEL 1139?
` A. No, not that I can think of.
` Q. Did anyone assist you in your
`research, investigation, or testing in
`preparing this declaration?
` A. I had administrative support in
`preparing the declaration.
` Q. Did anyone assist you in formulating
`your opinions for this declaration?
` A. The opinions reflected in this
`declaration are my own.
` (INTEL Exhibit Number 1239 for
` identification.)
` Q. Handing you what's been marked as
`Exhibit INTEL 1239. Do you recognize Exhibit
`INTEL 1239 as a declaration you submitted in
`IPR2019-00049? And I'll tell you I have a
`printing problem in my version. I apologize.
` A. Yeah, there's an issue.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 12
`
`
`
`Page 107
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
` Q. So starting at Page 17, the copy
`switched to landscape mode and some of the
`information is cut off at the bottom.
` A. Yes, that seems --
` Q. Starting from Paragraph 32 through
`the end.
` A. Yeah.
` Q. Again, let's see what we can do.
` A. Paragraph 31 is incomplete, right.
`Well, no, I guess you're right. Paragraph 32
`is the first one that's incomplete. My
`mistake.
` Q. So again, let's -- we'll see what we
`can do with this. If it becomes an issue, we
`will -- we'll stop and see if I can get a
`corrected copy. But for the moment, the last
`page does have a signature and a date.
` And, again, I recognize that this
`version is not complete from Paragraph 32 on.
`But is that your signature at the end dated
`December 23, 2019?
` A. That is my signature.
` Q. And from what you can tell with
`respect to the document that I've handed you,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 13
`
`
`
`Page 108
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`are you aware of any mistakes or omissions or
`clarifications in this document that you'd like
`to make?
` MR. FERNANDEZ: Objection. Form.
` Foundation.
` A. At least with respect to the first
`31 paragraphs, I'd just make the same note that
`I have on the other two IPRs that in
`Paragraph 4, I reference a priority date of
`August 21st, which is the filing date and that
`I -- consistent with our previous discussion of
`the 00048 and 00047 IPRs, that I considered the
`earliest priority date to be May 25th, 2012.
` Q. Any other mistakes or clarifications
`that you'd like to make?
` A. Not that I'm aware of.
` Q. Did anyone assist you in your
`research, investigation, or testing in
`preparing the declaration that's marked as
`Exhibit INTEL 1239?
` A. I received administrative support
`from Intel's counsel.
` Q. Did anyone assist you in formulating
`the opinions you've expressed in Exhibit
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 14
`
`
`
`Page 109
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`INTEL 1239?
` A. The opinions I have expressed in
`this declaration are my own.
` (INTEL Exhibit Number 1339 for
` identification.)
` Q. I'm handing you what's been marked
`as exhibit Intel 1339. Do you recognize
`exhibit Intel 1339 as a declaration you
`submitted in IPR2019-00128?
` A. Yes, I recognize this as a
`black-and-white copy of the declaration I
`prepared in response to the 00128 IPR.
` Q. And that's your signature on Page 27
`next to the date November 27th, 2019?
` A. Yes, Page 27 bears my signature.
` Q. Are you aware of any mistakes or
`clarifications you'd like to make in this
`document?
` A. As with the other, the previous
`three, on Paragraph 4, I have indicated a
`priority date of August 21st, 2012, which is
`the filing date of the patent. But for the
`purposes of the analysis I did, I used an
`earliest priority date of May 25th, 2012.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 15
`
`
`
`Page 110
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
` Q. Did anyone assist you in your
`research, investigation, or testing in
`preparing this declaration?
` A. I received administrative support
`from Intel's counsel.
` Q. Did anyone assist you in formulating
`the opinions you've expressed in Exhibit INTEL
`1339?
` A. The opinions expressed in this
`declaration are my own.
` (INTEL Exhibit Number 1439 for
` identification.)
` Q. Handing you what's been marked as
`Exhibit INTEL 1439. Do you recognize Exhibit
`INTEL 1439 as a declaration you submitted in
`IPR2019-00129?
` A. It appears to have a serious
`printing flaw.
` Q. It does. I will note for the record
`that again starting at -- here this one starts
`at Paragraph 33, the print switches to
`landscape mode and the bottom of each page is
`cut off from Paragraph 33 onward. So again,
`Dr. Fay, I apologize. We'll do what we can
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 16
`
`
`
`Page 111
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`with this. If that becomes an issue,
`throughout my questions, we will stop and
`figure out how to deal with obtaining a
`corrected version.
` MR. FERNANDEZ: Counsel, if you'd
` like to go off record for a brief moment
` and discuss this issue, we will be fine
` with that.
` MR. RITCHIE: Yeah, let's go off the
` record for a moment.
` (A discussion off the record.)
` MR. RITCHIE: Let's go back on the
` record.
` Q. From what you can tell from the
`document, which is obviously misprinted from
`Paragraph 33 onward, are you aware of any
`mistakes or omissions in this document that
`you'd like to correct?
` MR. FERNANDEZ: Objection. Form.
` Foundation.
` A. Through the first 32 paragraphs, I
`am aware of the same issue with this
`declaration, which is that I have written in
`Paragraph 4 a priority date of August 21st,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 17
`
`
`
`Page 112
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`2012, when in my previous declaration, as we
`discussed with respect to the 00047 IPR, the
`earliest priority date, according to the
`patent, was May 25th, 2012.
` Q. Are there any other mistakes or
`clarifications that you're aware of with
`respect to INTEL 1439?
` A. None that I'm aware of.
` Q. Did anyone assist you in your
`research, investigation, or testing in
`preparing Exhibit INTEL 1439?
` A. I received administrative support in
`the preparation of the document.
` Q. Did anyone assist you in formulating
`your opinions that are expressed in INTEL 1439?
` A. The opinions expressed in this
`exhibit are my own.
` Q. All right. I'd like to talk to you
`about the term "carrier aggregation." And if
`you want for reference, we can turn to INTEL
`1039, Paragraph 14. Now, in Paragraph 14 of
`INTEL 1039, you state that carrier aggregation
`means simultaneous operation on multiple
`carriers, correct?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 18
`
`
`
`Page 113
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
` A. What I state in Paragraph 14 is that
`it's my conclusion that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of carrier aggregation is
`simultaneous operation on multiple carriers.
` Q. And you go on to state that the
`specification defines the term "carrier
`aggregation," correct?
` A. Yes. What I say in Paragraph 14 is
`this construction comes directly from the
`specification which defines the term, and then
`I provide a quote from column 1, Lines 32 and
`33: A wireless device may support carrier
`aggregation, which is simultaneous operation on
`multiple carriers.
` Q. Now, what is the basis for your
`opinion that the specification defines the term
`carrier aggregation?
` A. Can you clarify for me what you mean
`by when you say "basis"?
` Q. As we just noted, this sentence
`states that the specification defines the term.
`And what I'm looking for is the analysis, your
`reasons what led you to conclude that the
`specification defines the term.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 19
`
`
`
`Page 114
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
` A. As I state here in Paragraph 14,
`this comes directly from the specification,
`which defines the term. And you can see the
`sentence I've quoted here from column 1, Lines
`32 to 33: Where the patent writes expressly, a
`wireless device may support carrier
`aggregation, which is simultaneous operation on
`multiple carriers.
` Q. You've referred to a sentence at
`column 1, rows 32 to 33. Is there any other
`references in the specification that you're
`relying on for your conclusion that the
`specification defines the term?
` A. The specification also provides
`additional support for this interpretation.
`And would it be possible for me to have a copy
`of the '356 patent?
` (INTEL Exhibit Number 1001 for
` identification.)
` Q. Certainly. I'm going to hand you
`what's been marked as Exhibit INTEL 1001. Do
`you recognize this as the U.S. Patent -- U.S.
`Patent No. 9,154,356 that is the subject of
`these IPRs?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 20
`
`
`
`Page 115
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
` A. Yes, I recognize this as the '356
`patent.
` Q. All right. Now, you may refer to
`that, and I'll repeat my question that I asked.
` You referred to a sentence at
`column 1, Row 32 and 33, as defining the term
`as support for your conclusion that the
`specification defines the term "carrier
`aggregation." And my question was: Are there
`any other references in the specification that
`you're relying on for your conclusion that the
`specification defines the term "carrier
`aggregation"?
` A. Yes. There are two other areas in
`the specification that I cite also in
`Paragraph 14 that support this interpretation.
`I provide a citation to column 2, rows 53 to
`54, where it states: Wireless device 110 may
`support carrier aggregation, which is operation
`on multiple carriers. And also line -- or,
`excuse me, column 2, Line 54 and 55: Carrier
`aggregation may also be referred to as
`multi-carrier operation.
` Q. Okay. So if I heard you correctly,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 21
`
`
`
`Page 116
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`I think what you said was the sentence at
`column 1, row 32 and 33 define the term and the
`other two references at column 2, 53/54 and
`column 2, 54/55 support that interpretation; is
`that correct?
` MR. FERNANDEZ: Objection. Form.
` Foundation.
` A. That's a little bit different than I
`intended to convey.
` Q. Please clarify. And, again, the
`base of my question is: What is the basis for
`your opinion that the specification defines the
`term carrier aggregation?
` A. It's my conclusion that the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of carrier
`aggregation is simultaneous operation on
`multiple carriers because the specification
`defines it. You see the definition in column
`1, rows 32 to 33, and a very similar disclosure
`in column 2, 53 to 54 and -- column 2, 53 to
`54.
` Q. So where does the specification
`define the term carrier aggregation
`specifically?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 22
`
`
`
`Page 117
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
` MR. FERNANDEZ: Objection. Form.
` A. It's my position that these
`statements that I've quoted here in
`Paragraph 14 are where the specification
`defines the term.
` Q. So the sentence at column 1 defines
`the term; is that correct? 1, 32 to 33?
` MR. FERNANDEZ: Objection. Form.
` A. The citation, column 1, 32 to 33,
`but also column 2, 53 to 54 serves as a
`definition.
` Q. So the definition is repeated twice
`in the specification; is that correct?
` A. The author reiterates what he means
`by carrier aggregation and uses, as you can see
`from these quotes, slightly different
`characterizations. But in reading the entirety
`of the specification, it becomes clear that the
`definition in column 1 is the most complete one
`that he provides.
` Q. What do you mean by it's the most
`complete definition in the context of the
`entirety of the specification?
` A. My understand- -- well -- could you
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 23
`
`
`
`Page 118
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`please repeat your question?
` Q. You stated: In reading the entirety
`of the specification, it becomes clear that the
`definition in column 1 is the most complete one
`that he provides.
` What do you mean by it's the most
`complete definition with respect to the
`entirety of the specification?
` MR. FERNANDEZ: Objection. Form.
` A. In my original declaration at
`Paragraph 28, I describe -- since I'm not a
`lawyer, I describe my understanding of the
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard as
`was conveyed to me by petitioner's counsel.
` I understand that that is the --
`that the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard refers to the broadest reasonable
`interpretation that a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would give to a claim term in light
`of the specification.
` So by "complete," I meant taking
`that definition, which he provides in column 1,
`lines 32 to 33, and interpreting it in light of
`the entire -- interpreting that in light of the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 24
`
`
`
`Page 119
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`specification.
` Q. Okay. I'm focused on the "defines
`the term" part of your opinion in the second
`declaration here. Is there something about the
`rest of the specification that tells you that
`the sentence at column 1, row 32 to 33 is a
`definition?
` A. The remainder of the specification
`describes the purported invention and its use
`cases, its structure, and that is consistent
`with what I would say is a definitional
`statement in column 1, Lines 32 to 33.
` Q. So focused on the statement at
`column 1, row 32 and 33, it's your opinion that
`that statement is a definition of the term
`carrier aggregation; is that correct?
` A. It is my conclusion that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art reading the sentence
`that we reference in column 1, Lines 32 through
`33, would interpret that as the author of the
`patent's definition of carrier aggregation.
` Q. And now let's turn to the second
`reference that you pointed to there, the one at
`column 2, row 53 to 54. Is it your opinion
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 25
`
`
`
`Page 120
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`that that statement is also a definition of the
`term?
` A. Line -- or column 2, Lines 53 to 54
`where it states, "wireless device 110 may
`support carrier aggregation, which is operation
`on multiple carriers," is also another
`definition of carrier aggregation that's
`contained within the patent.
` Q. So the patent includes two -- in
`your opinion the patent includes two
`definitions of the term carrier aggregation; is
`that correct?
` MR. FERNANDEZ: Objection to form.
` A. The -- I would -- I think that
`mischaracterizes my opinion a little bit, yes.
` Q. Please. Please, can you clarify for
`me? What are those two sentences that we're
`referring to there?
` A. The -- I believe a person of
`ordinary skill in the art reading the
`specification would see column 2, Lines 53 to
`54 as a reiteration of the definition provided
`earlier in column 1, Lines 32 to 33.
` Q. So are you saying the statement at
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 26
`
`
`
`Page 121
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`column 2, row 53 to 54 is not a definition of
`the term carrier aggregation?
` A. No.
` Q. No, it is not a definition or --
` A. Oh, I'm sorry. Can you repeat your
`question? Perhaps I didn't answer the correct
`question.
` Q. Yeah, and I might have phrased it in
`the negative. Let me say it in the
`affirmative.
` Are you saying that the statement at
`column 2, row 53 to 54 is a definition of the
`term carrier aggregation?
` A. It's my position that -- I should
`say I am saying that the statement in column 2,
`Lines 53 to 54, is a reiteration of the earlier
`definition provided in column 1, Lines 32 to
`33.
` Q. So the sentence in column 1 is a
`definition, correct?
` A. The sentence in column 1, lines 32
`to 33, where he writes, "A wireless device may
`support carrier aggregation, which is
`simultaneous operation on multiple carriers,"
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 27
`
`
`
`Page 122
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`is a statement that a person of skill -- of
`ordinary skill in the art would consider to be
`a definition of carrier aggregation provided by
`the authors of the patent.
` Q. And the sentence at column 2, row 53
`to 54 reiterates support for that earlier
`definition; is that correct?
` MR. FERNANDEZ: Objection. Form.
` Q. Is -- scratch that sentence.
` The sentence at column 2, row 53 to
`54 is not a separate definition of the term
`carrier aggregation; is that correct?
` MR. FERNANDEZ: Objection. Form.
` A. A person -- it's my position that a
`person of skill in the art reading the
`specification encountering the statement at
`column 1, Lines 32 to 33, and then subsequently
`encountering the statement in column 2, 53 to
`54, would see that statement as a reiteration
`of the definition provided in column 1.
` Q. And why isn't the sentence at
`column 2, row 53 and 54 a definition standing
`on its own?
` A. In the abstract, devoid of context,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 28
`
`
`
`Page 123
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`perhaps a sentence like that could be
`considered to be a definition. But my
`understanding of the law is that the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of the claim terms,
`which is what I'm discussing in my Paragraph 14
`and 15 of my declaration, is directed towards
`the broadest reasonable interpretation, which
`is, as I stated earlier, what a person of
`ordinary skill in the art, a meaning that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would give
`to a claim term in light of the specification.
`So the context in light of the specification is
`important.
` Q. And can you be more specific about
`how the specification provides context for you
`to conclude that the statement at column 2, row
`53 to 54 is not a definition standing on its
`own?
` MR. FERNANDEZ: Objection to form.
` A. The statement at column 1 provides a
`modestly more complete definition by including
`the word "simultaneous." And we also see
`reading the more technical parts of the patent
`that there's a great deal of discussion of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 29
`
`
`
`Page 124
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`simultaneous operation on multiple carriers
`that would inform a person of ordinary skill in
`the art's understanding of the term.
` Q. And when you say there's a great
`deal of discussion of simultaneous operation on
`multiple carriers, specifically where are you
`referring to?
` A. There's quite a lot of it. As just
`one example, in column 8, Lines 36 through 44
`describes operation of the circuitry disclosed
`in Figure 6B in a carrier aggregated mode --
`no, yeah, yeah, 6B in carrier aggregation mode.
` Q. And so you're saying that that
`reference that you just identified shows that
`the carrier aggregation that is referred to in
`the patent is in the context of simultaneous
`operation; is that correct?
` A. I'm sorry. You lost me in the
`middle of the question. Could you please
`repeat it?
` Q. We were talking about the word
`"simultaneous" with respect to operation on
`multiple carriers. And you indicated an
`example was in Figure 6B at column 8, Lines 36
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2019-00048
`Qualcomm 2029, p. 30
`
`
`
`Page 125
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` P. FAY, PH.D.
`through 44. And you're saying that provides
`context that the operation on multiple carriers
`that's discussed in the patent is simultaneous;
`is that correct?
` MR. FERNANDEZ: Objection. Form.
` A. The operation of the circuitry in
`Figure 6B showing the operation in the carrier
`aggregation mode of LNA, 640a is shown